Last week I posted an essay on Baptist church autonomy. As I did the research for that essay, I found some interesting material in Howard Forshee’s Broadman Church Manual. This manual is quite helpful, and I’ve given copies to several new pastors. In his book Forshee quotes from Lee McCoy’s book, Understanding Baptist Polity, sharing the principles of New Testament polity. The word “polity” pertains to governance. My comments are in parenthesis.
- God is the sovereign ruler of all mankind.
- Christ is the head and divine teacher of the church. (Eph 5:23)
- The Holy Spirit is our guide and source of power. (As a foreign missionary, I taught the baby churches to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and study the Bible to find answers to their questions and concerns. In other words, I taught them to be guided by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Bible.)
- The Bible is the supreme authority of the church.
- Each individual is competent and free under God. (This pertains to the priesthood of the believer.)
- Each church is an autonomous spiritual democracy. (I have heard that a Baptist church is a “spiritual democracy” all my life. This means that Baptist churches generally practice congregational polity. Still, that phrase, “spiritual democracy,” always makes me wonder. Would we do better to say that a church is a “Christocracy,” meaning ruled by Christ? We may wish to discuss this matter.)
- A church is a regenerate body. (This means a church is comprised of born-again people.)
- Church members have equal rights and privileges. (Each member has one vote.)
- Church cooperation is a voluntary matter. (Churches voluntarily join a local Baptist association, a state convention, and the SBC. A church can be a member of one, but not another.)
- Religious liberty is an inalienable right. (I sadly predict that religious liberty will be threatened more and more in the coming years.)
(Original Source: Lee H. McCoy, Understanding Baptist Polity, Convention Press)
When William Thornton and I were young, these principles were taught to us in Training Union on Sunday evenings. Of course, Training Union is long gone. I wonder, though, how our members can learn these principles today.
Thank you Mark for presenting this article for our consideration and discussion. Like you, I grew up hearing these tenets proclaimed in church and in seminary. I embrace most of them. However, I think the one that has been overlooked the most is the biblical concept of a regenerate church membership. No doubt this one is more difficult to implement than casting a majority vote. We need more focus and better training on maintaining a regenerate church membership. A second concern I have is the idea that the church is a democracy. Because we embrace the priesthood of the believer, I can understand how people who live in a democratic republic would want to have a church that is a democracy in terms of decision making. I think this is a big mistake. We know Jesus is Lord of the church, the Bible is our propositional authority, and the Holy Spirit leads us as the people of God. I would like to see us drop the word democracy (I like Christocracy) and embrace the biblical teaching of unity in decision making as well as doctrine and practice. Every time a church votes on important matters like calling a pastor, building a new facility, or adopting a budget, a 60% majority vote with 40% against is a vote that splits a church. I would like to see us embrace the concept of a CONSENSUS (perhaps there is a better term) over majority rule. I am not saying you have to have 100% support for all decisions. I am saying that a consensus, what God is leading us to do together, is a more biblical approach than the political terms “majority rule.” My pastor in Fort Worth TX taught me this concept while I was in seminary and it has served the church well through the years. Multiple times when our church was voting on an important issue, even if the majority of members were in favor of a motion, if there was a significant split in the vote, such as 80/20, we paused and said it is obvious we are not together on this. Let’s postpone this decision until we are more unified in this decision. Thank you again for the article. I look forward to hearing what others think about these baptist polity issues.
High praise for my Georgia friend and fellow pastor who knows the difference between “tenet” and “tenant.”
I always operated on the basis of consensus, generally a goal to be achieved prior to any formal vote. A church near by went through a long process. Just prior to a vote, someone foisted on the congregation the requirement of at least an 80% favorable vote. The vote was a few points below the threshold which meant that the project was scrapped on the basis of a few people. The church was divided and suffered greatly as a result, a huge mess. There’s no hard and fast rules, best I can tell. If it’s put forward from the start that consensus is the route the church will take, then it’s understood.
We all have our stories.
Great post on polity. Technically a church only joins the local Baptist Association. A church is considered (usually for a year) and voted on by the current members of the Association. No church joins the SBC, they decide to participate and associate with them by giving to the SBC CP. No application or vote of approval. State conventions operate the same way (I know of one exception).
Consensus is a great concept. It doesn’t mean that a few people can hold the church hostage with a negative vote, but it does mean that a church can learn how to discern the movement of the Holy Spirit in the congregation and recognize there might be a problem with something that has been proposed. It might just be a problem with the way it has been presented or perceived, or it may be that God is moving among people and giving an answer. The open discussion of whatever it is–a building proposal, a new pastor or staff member, a major budget expense, whatever it is, should give some sense of what the church is thinking and feeling and the vote should answer the question.
I’ve been a member of a church where consensus was required by the constitution and bylaws of the congregation. It works very well. A quorum of 80% of the “active” church membership must be present. “Active” is defined as listed in the attendance register at least 20 out of the last 26 Sundays. The church secretary keeps track of this with a software program and publishes the list two weeks before the meeting. There cannot be “proxy” votes. The discussion is important and there were times when things were tabled before a vote due to the discussion. Anything that doesn’t get at least 90% approval is tabled and if it is still not at that threshold by the next meeting, the proposal is either dropped or changed according to suggestions made. The pastor was not the moderator of the business meeting, but was a member with the ability to participate in the discussion. The meetings were preceded by a prayer meeting. I don’t recall any controversy over church business during the entire seven and a half years I was a member there.
The polity was a bit different from what I’d been used to with regard to the church’s relationship to its denominational structures. They had “districts” rather than associations, covering a larger geographic region. The churches were autonomous in that they called their own pastors, kept track of their own finances and operated their own ministry, and they had a measure of control over their buildings and property, but the deeds were owned by the district, whose board had to approve construction projects, going into debt, or anything related to it. Ordination was done by a district council in accordance with denominational requirements and churches had to call pastors from that group of ordained men.
The Bible certainly supports statements 1-4 and 7.
Would you mind giving me Biblical support for statements 5,6,8,9 and 10?
I’ve yet to have anyone convince me that church business meetings and committees or even democratic process is a Biblical rather than man-made system.
I know it’s the SBC way, but I still think it’s a non-biblical way. (I know, I’ve just committed SBC heresy here. It’s not my intention to offend anyone.)
More and more SB churches in our area are turning to a plurality of Elders to lead their churches rather than majority rule. And I believe that is Biblically sound. The church I’m pastoring isn’t there yet, but I’m hopeful.
Everytime there is a church vote that isn’t unanimous there are winners and losers. And that always leads to disunity in the body. Why would we want the spiritually immature to have an equal voice with those who are mature in their faith?
But, I would like to hear scriptural support for statements 5,6,8,9 and 10.
Other than the selection of the seven who were later approved but the church Elders I don’t see where the church ever voted on anything. I suppose there was consensus at the Jerusalem council, but that was a meeting of Elders, not the entire body.
But, I agree that “if” we are to be a democratic church, we must be a regenerate church. Heaven help us if the unregenerate are a part of the decision making process. Unfortunately, that’s happening in our churches.
My current church does a good job of separating the wheat from the tares. The unregenerate usually don’t hang around long without becoming regenerated. But that new believer who’s just started drinking the milk still has the same vote as his brother who has been on the meat for awhile. I don’t see Biblical support for that. But I’m willing to learn if someone will teach me from scripture. A list without Biblical reference doesn’t help much.
Number 9 is technically true but is often read wrongly by Americans. As worded it places the decision for or against cooperation in the hands of the membership. It leads to an attitude that says “we don’t have to cooperate if we don’t want to!” Definitely contrary to Christ. Putting the final decision in the hands of the congregation also contradicts the truth of no. 2 that Christ is head of the Church. Instead let’s begin with the truth that Christ wants us to cooperate with other churches and word this:
Since cooperation is necessary to the fulfilling of the church’s mission each congregation should eagerly seek the best ways to cooperate in missions and other endeavors trusting Christ to open the door for such ministry and to bless the congregation’s endeavors.
But would Christ want us to cooperate with false churches? If a church is not obedient to statements 1-4 do we still seek cooperation with them? And number 7. Are we to be unequivocally yoked with unbelievers? There has to be some limitation to cooperation. There has to be some standard. I would suggest number 4. But I don’t believe we can be co-operative with churches that don’t cooperate. Cooperation cannot be achieved outside the authority of scripture. We can’t just go along to get along.
By what standard, and under whose authority, would you make a determination that a church was not obedient to statements 1-4? That would require a measure of ecclesiastical authority, not autonomy.
I don’t see very many places in scripture where polity of the local church is discussed at all. Acts chapter 15 shows that one church, Antioch, decided to get the advice and counsel of their mother church at Jerusalem on a matter of importance. Initially, the apostles and elders met with Paul and Barnabus as representatives of the body at Antioch, but the decision was made by the consent of the whole church (v.22). And I take that, in context, to mean all of the believers who gathered in small groups in houses all over Jerusalem for worship and teaching. V. 28 seems like it gives considerable autonomy to the Antioch church. Most of the rest of the New Testament is apostolic in that an apostle, most notably Paul, answers questions and settles matters primarily of spiritual concern.
Well, first I’m convinced that all authority for the church belongs to scripture. Just because a church, or an association, or a convention votes on an issue doesn’t make it right. If a church votes to call a lesbian as pastor does that make them right? No. So the standard is the Word of God, not the whims of man. But that leads us to the problem of various interpretations.
In Acts 15 the church in Antioch didn’t make a democratic decision. They sent the ones who came from Jerusalem back to Jerusalem for an answer. Regarding the question of circumcision they relied on the decision of the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem. No autonomy in that decision at all. They did what the Apostles and Elders told them to do.
In doing that unity and cooperation was preserved. If the church in Antioch had voted one way and Jerusalem voted another it would have been very difficult for them to cooperate with each other. The same holds true for Southern Baptist.
We have the same decision makers available to us today. The Apostles through the inspired Word of God and the Elders of the Church.
Soon after the Council, Paul and Bananas practiced individual autonomy. Which one was right?
In what way did they practice individual autonomy? Unless you mean their later disagreement over Mark? We all have personal decisions to make. I’m not sure how their individual decision had anything to do with the church autonomy.
But I guess we can bring it to a vote. That should determine which of the two was right. Can you put that in the form of a motion? I move that Barnabas was right. Do we have a second?
(Sarcasm, I learned it from Paul. He was good at it.)
Likewise, I’m no sure that the Council had anything to do with church autonomy. We might infer that this church was autonomous as they seemed under no compulsion to abide by the direction of Paul and Barnabas. It seems that everyone involved desired a Spirit directed consensus. It seems that there was a high degree of mutual respect and mutual submission involved. I’m not sure that all churches followed the direction of the Council, but those that did probably attracted more Gentiles.
“And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.” Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.”
Yes, these two men did have decisions to make and they seemed to make them without appealing to human authority, without voting, and without achieving consensus.
Given Paul’s use of circumcision as an evangelistic bridge, I understand John Mark’s desire to return home. Surely there’s a better way to determine who’s right than voting; but, if we must, I choose Barnabas as well. Paul seems a little too “my way or the highway” at this point with his helpers. I sincerely believe he became a much better leader in that Roman prison.
Well, there a huge difference between Paul and Barnabas. One was an Apostle and one wasn’t. So I wouldn’t be too quick to judge Paul’s motives or methods.
Though I’m not certain that Paul was an apostle in the sense that he is one of the 12 names on the pillars or in the sense that his appostleship ranks above that of Barnabas, I am certain that he had a better grasp of what Jesus taught than I do.
Did Paul have any apostolic authority in the matter?
If folks are going to question the apostleship of Paul and his authority then we have much bigger issues than church polity to deal with on this board. God help us.
Could someone explain what McCoy means in the last sentence of Number 9: “A church can be a member of one, but not another.”
Thanks.
A church can be a cooperating member of the Southern Baptist Convention without being a member of an association or choosing to affiliate with a state convention.
A church can be an SBC church and not be a member of the local association.
Thanks, David and Strider. The way it is stated was confusing me. Probably just me.
This is a good list and if it were headed traditional baptist polity, I would likely agree. I have a hard time finding several of these mandated by scripture.
First the Bible does not describe a spiritual democracy as the “right” form of church government. It seems that the Bible expressly creates several offices and roles but is silent of the matter of democracy, particularly as practiced in the typical Baptist church. Personally I like some elements of democracy in the church, not because I believe in the goodnesses of man but because I don’t.But…I can’t find a clear mandate. Or even a murky one. Try as we might the traditional Baptist business meeting is no where to be found.
Second, religious liberty in the sense of freedom from interference in Christian belief and practice from the state would never be a New Testament principle because of the influence of Rome. Rome was fine with diverse religious practice as long as it did not interfere with the power and aims of the state. I don’t see evidence that the New Testament church pushed back on the political power of Rome. While the church was subversive from the Roman perspective, subversion of the state never seemed to be a goal of the church.
Amen.
I’m sorry to be slow to respond. I was tied up with church responsibilities yesterday. I’ll respond more fully tomorrow. I just used the title “New Testament Principles” that Howard Forshee used in his book, The Broadman Church Manual, where I found this list. I don’t have a copy of McCoy’s book, but I assume Forshee used the heading from McCoy’s book. I agree that items 8-10 reflect Baptist tradition rather than explicit biblical teaching. Sadly, I don’t have a copy of McCoy’s book. He may have included supporting Bible verses in the book, but they were not included in Forshee’s book, which I quoted. As I mentioned in my post. The words in parenthesis are words that I added. In regard to consensus, in my years as a missionary, I found that most churches overseas operated by consensus. I’ve advised my seminary students here in the USA that a 51 to 49 percent vote in church business meeting is not a decision, but rather a budding problem.
Wise man. In politics 65% to 35% is a landslide. In church, it’s a split.
That’s good. I’ll have to borrow that.
Thank you for the explanation.
I’ve only been pastoring SB churches for 4 years. I was in a Missionary Baptist Church prior to that. I’ve struggled with getting used to SB polity. I’m getting used to it. But I still scratch my head and ask, why?
I think tradition is the the right term for some of these. Scripture never changes. Tradition should. If tradition remains in place too long people confuse it with doctrine.
D E, thanks for your interaction. In regard to #5, this speaks of the priesthood of the believer. The principal verse that speaks of this is 1 Peter 2:9–“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation…(NKJV). Both Luther and Calvin considered the priesthood of the believer as a key doctrine of the Reformation.
About number 6, the church being a “spiritual democracy,” this is a traditional Southern Baptist expression. The Southern Baptist Statement of Faith and Message says, “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.” (Article VI. The Church) As I stated in the post, I’m not comfortable personally with describing a church as a democracy, which means “rule by the people.” It has always seemed more appropriate to say that a New Testament church is a Christocracy, meaning ruled by Christ. I’m not saying that I’m opposed to voting in a business meeting, but surely those votes should be preceded by prayer that seeks to know the will of Christ.
Thank you. It’s a thought provoking article.
No place for pastoral leadership or authority?
The post was not about that topic, but I’m happy to respond. I believe Acts 6 provides our model for church decision making. The church in Jerusalem faced a problem–the dispute about the distribution of aid. The Apostles proposed a solution, and the congregation approved their proposal. In other words, the congregation followed the leadership of the Apostles. Today, the pastor/staff would propose a solution, and the congregation would vote to approve it. (I’m assuming appropriate prayer by staff and congregation.) Of course, I realize that some SBC churches have elders now, but I’ll discuss that in another post. Besides that, I believe the interaction between elders and congregation varies somewhat from church to church.